'How to be green? Many people have asked us this important question. It's really very simple and requires no expert knowledge or complex skills. Here's the answer. Consume less. Share more. Enjoy life.' Penny Kemp and Derek Wall

6 Dec 2013

Dr Derek Wall, International Coordinator of the Green Party of England and Wales stated:

'Nelson Mandela was an inspiring figure, he showed that resistance to injustice is possible and that reconciliation is vital. Our memorial to him must be our resistance to injustice and inequality. Those who fight for justice are often condemned until they win the fight and belatedly are then described as heros, we need to be aware that across the world there are new Mandela's who will be abused until they succeed in making necessary change.

However Nelson Mandela must also be remembered as a peace maker, advocating reconciliation between former enemies, this is a practical side of his work that we can all learn from. South Africa has made great progress but it is still a society where poverty divides communities, we are aware that from the Marikana massacre to battles against electricity privatisation, the long walk to freedom still has many miles to go. Mandela was never just one man, he was a product of a process iniated by South Africans and international networks for liberation and that process must continue'

26 Nov 2013

The Tories are increasingly fond of deriding
their opponents as Marxists - but DEREK WALL says there should be no
shame in such a label

David Cameron has quipped that Ed Milband is living in a
Marxist universe - which says more perhaps about the ideologically
blinked perspective of our Prime Minister than the beliefs of the leader
of the opposition.
You don't have to be a Marxist to believe that energy companies are
overcharging us. After all former Tory PM John Major has said just this
and he is not exactly an out-and-out communist.
In Cameron's free-market universe the stars and planets would be up
for sale and no doubt molecules would only react with each other if paid
a profit incentive.
However it is worth asking whether Marx should influence our political perspectives today.
Perhaps unusually, unlike Miliband, I am happy to call myself a Marxist.
In British politics this seems rather shocking, like admitting to
consuming fried Mars bars or enjoying the music of Barry Manilow.
Marx famously remarked that he wasn't a Marxist and his views have
been under serious attack pretty much from when he was exiled from
Germany in the 1840s to today.
So is he still relevant and what can those of us on the left learn from him today?
As a Green I became interested in the cause of environmental
problems. So many of them are products of capitalism and the theorist
who explained capitalism best remains, in my view, the German guy with
the beard.
Even right-wing economic commentators from the Economist magazine to
the Austrian economist Schumpter have acknowledged - grudgingly - his
power in this regard.
Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto wrote that history was the history of class struggle. This is a vital insight.
The rich and the powerful continue to work for their own interests.
Whether we are discussing the bedroom tax or the assault on Iraq by the
US and British governments, class interests remain significant in
shaping politics.
The mass of us are, despite sociological debates, members of the
working class. We are excluded from owning the means of production and
have to work for others, the capitalists, who get fat on the use of our
surplus labour power.
Marx was a key ecological theorist. He and Engels were concerned with
issues such as deforestation, soil erosion, food additives and river
pollution.
In fact one of the best statements of what green politics means can
be found in volume III of Capital: "Even an entire society, a nation, or
all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not the
owners of the earth. They are simply its possessors, its beneficiaries,
and have to bequeath it in an improved state to succeeding generations
as boni patres familias (good heads of the household)."
His ecological ideas, which may surprise those who believe he was a
prophet of unlimited industrial growth, have been explored in some
detail in John Bellamy Foster's book Marx's Ecology. I highly recommend
it.
There are other virtues to Marx. He wrote with flair and drew upon a
rich literature. He was fascinated by science, history, indigenous
peoples and worked obsessively to research his key themes.
I think, above all, he opened up a new way of thinking about politics
and society. We are used to political parties and thinkers who draw up
often somewhat abstract sets of demands for what they are "for" and what
they are "against."
Marx didn't believe the key task was to paint a picture of a better
world and challenge the vision of others. This was partly because he was
a radical democrat, and knew that one person's vision might be
oppressive to others - democratic discussion was necessary.
He also thought that it was important to understand social processes
so that we could revolutionise society, rather than list how we would
like to see things and why we disagree with others.
This is where his ideas are most enduring. If we understand processes
such as the accumulation of capital and the creation of the state, we
can potentially enact radical and positive change.
In this sense he and Engels were social scientists. While this seems a
little abstract, I once read that Marx saw the world, like Shakespeare,
as a theatre.
We often believe that appearances reflect reality, so when the
government states that it acts in our interest we might naively believe
them. Or we might view society as a conspiracy controlled by a hidden
elite.
Marx, while conscious of class power, was aware that social processes
shaped even what the ruling class does. Capitalism is more complex than
a simple conspiracy from Marx's perspective.
We live perhaps as Brecht, the Marxist playwright suggested, in a
theatre, but we can if we understand the processes of creating the
dramatic illusion, such as the lighting, the set design and the
script-writing we can create our own world rather than being puppets
controlled by "extra-human" mechanisms.
Marx noted sagely that "if essences and appearances coincided" there
would be no need for "science." For Marx social reality is neither a
reflection of reality nor the product of a conspiracy. We need to dig a
little if we are to understand it.
Capitalism is about the accumulation of capital.
We forget that human beings create capitalism and we often worship finance.
Stock market values are on the news. The material and emotional needs of human beings are not worth discussing.
Marx pointed to the possibility of a revolution that would put human
beings back in control. Above all, he believed in the democratic control
of the ownership of production. Rather than the economy being in the
hands of a minority, driven by short-term considerations of profit, it
should be shared by all.
Marx never claimed to have all the answers. Neither was he always
right - for example, Che Guevara pointed out that Marx's criticism of
the Latin American anti-imperialist leader Simon Bolivar, whom Marx
condemned as a dictator, was open to challenge. His record as a feminist
is also worth debating.
Marx's work nonetheless, as even his critics, acknowledge, remains a powerful form of analysis.
Even on the left excuses are used to dismiss Marx's work. However
whether one is critical of countries that have tried to put his ideas
into practice or the practices of existing Marxist political parties, I
think we do still live in a Marxist universe.
Capitalism is after all still with us, inequality is rising and ecological problems are pressing.
We can use his ideas in a dogmatic or sectarian way but this is a
mistake. Writing about his ideas and other important Marxist thinkers as
a purely academic exercise is also wrong - Marx believed in social
change not intellectual activity for its own sake.
Happily Marx's works are available for free, on the Marxist Internet Archive (www.marxists.org) which he would have loved.
And across the world, but especially in Latin America, grass-roots movements are inspired by his work.
Marx remains worth engaging with and on the big questions of reaching
a truly democratic and ecologically sustainable society, I am sure I am
not alone in finding his work essential.
And I think I need to go to the chip shop for another fried
confectionery product. As a cyclist with the winter drawing in I need
every calorie I can get.

21 Nov 2013

Lucas: PM’s attitude to green levies shows his contempt for the most
vulnerable
For immediate release: Thursday 21 November 2013
Commenting on reports that the Prime Minister has dismissed fuel bill
levies that fund energy efficiency measures, as “green crap”, Caroline
Lucas, Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion, said:
“These levies include funding for energy efficiency measures which help
low income households cope with soaring energy prices.
“Whatever language the Prime Minister has used to describe them, his
determination to roll them back says everything about his contempt for
the most vulnerable, and his lack of interest in serious action to
tackle climate change, or to bring down fuel prices in the long term
“By focusing the debate on green levies, which represent only a
fraction of energy bills, the Government is obscuring the real reason
for rising costs – which is the increasing wholesale price of gas, and
the profits of the Big Six energy companies.
“If the Prime Minister really wanted to help families with their fuel
bills, he’d be investing in a major energy efficiency programme to
super-insulate the country’s housing stock. This would bring nine out
of ten homes out of fuel poverty, quadruple carbon savings, and create
up to 200,000 jobs.”

27 Oct 2013

Subsidies for environmentally friendly power sources are regularly maligned as leading to higher prices for customers - but what's the truth? DEREK WALL takes a look

The CEOs of Europe's 10 largest energy companies met earlier this year at the Brussels museum of Rene Magritte to lobby the European Union on energy matters.
Magritte was, of course, a surrealist well known for his paintings of umbrellas raining upon us.
Given the surreal policy objectives of the group, which wants to slash funding for renewables, the venue might seem appropriate.
Yet hardly a day goes by without an attack on renewable energy in the British media.
With electricity and gas bills climbing, the energy sector is keen to blame "green taxes" for rising energy bills, while suggesting that environmental energy will lead to the lights going out.
In Con-Dem Britain, where wages are often falling compared to inflation, most of us are having trouble paying the bills. Ed Miliband's demand that energy bills be cut has, for once, wrong-footed his opponents, both Blairites in Labour and our present neoliberal government.
The energy companies deny that they are fat cats and some blame their 10 per cent energy bill increases on environmental costs.
Ukip and a variety of reactionaries claim that wind turbines are the most dangerous form of energy and that there must be a war against environmental charges.
The Conservative Environment Minister Owen Paterson - famous for claiming the badgers have moved the goal posts - is a climate sceptic who wants to smash environmental protection. He has argued that climate change may bring benefits and is said to have a phobia of wind turbines.
So there are some powerful forces arrayed against renewable energy, but is the claim that it is pushing up bills correct?
There certainly are an array of complex charges that have environmental implications.
The objection of the energy corporations, especially the Magritte group, is that they will put prices down and cut their profits.
How can we be in a position where energy prices are rising but energy companies claim that their industry is uneconomic?
Adam Smith, despite being an advocate of the "free market," cautioned in The Wealth Of Nations that businesspeople would always like to get together to work out how they could rig markets for their own benefit.
He noted: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
European energy corporations have invested heavily in fossil fuel-based energy plants. But subsidies for renewable energy have pushed down wholesale prices and they are suffering.
The more that energy policies work to promote renewables the less profit they will make and the harder they will find it to remain in business.
Increased wind energy generated by community groups and solar from individuals' roof tops have the potential to put their business model under threat.
The array of supposed "green taxes" have had a modest effect on bills in the short term, but in the long term, as even the Daily Mail has admitted, will cut bills and thus cut company profits.
A good example is the "smart meter," which all homes will be required to have by 2020.
This will add a shocking £3 to the average bill but will make it much easier to see where we use electricity and so allow us to cut our bills.
Likewise subsidies for insulation and solar power are problematic for energy companies.
If you install a solar panel and get a grant for insulation, this cuts your bill. Over the long term all these measures will lead to significant cuts rather than rises in your bills.
Many sources of renewable energy have large fixed costs for installation but once set up can run virtually for free.
A solar panel gets the sun for free, a gas-powered station requires a constant supply of costly gas.
There is some truth nonetheless in criticism of green charges. In the short term they raise bills and could be funded in other ways.
The religion of the market means that we have to pay for ecological and other reforms.
Why not fund energy policy out of general taxation and raise corporation tax or the top rate of income tax?
A long-term shift from tax on corporations to taxes on individuals, shifts the burden on to the poorest.
This clearly is unacceptable.
And why even make power generation a source of corporate profits?
The new power station at Hinkley will see the French and Chinese state-backed companies that will build and run it guaranteed a price for their electricity which is above the market rate for decades into the future.
The mania for privatisation has meant that a number of textbook examples of natural monopolies, where competition doesn't work, have been sold off to fat cats.
Royal Mail, water, rail transport - all of these industries would be better nationalised.
All investment which is expensive in the short term will be ignored by private owners if they can, and issues of social justice and environmental quality will be ignored too.
While it is good that Miliband is challenging rising energy bills, he won't dare call for nationalisation. Yet privately run energy just does not work.
We need and are on the road to a renewable energy future.
Fossil fuels are rising in price over the long term and are the cause of climate change.
We need a different kind of energy supply system. Private corporations won't invest, but if the system was state-run and the richest started paying their fair share of tax it could easily be funded.
More and more energy will be produced by individuals and communities. In Scotland, for example, villagers in some projects collectively own wind turbines and feed into the grid.
The grid needs to be modernised. "Smart grids" work by balancing energy inputs over large areas.
Methods to store electricity need to be enhanced and funded.
State ownership and planning of larger power stations and the grid is necessary, but diverse local energy suppliers can feed in too.
The energy corporations are dinosaurs and sadly, rather than recognising that they need to be replaced with a system that works, Miliband merely wants to shave their profits a little.
A green solution involves evolving our energy system so that it is more sustainable.
We musn't be fooled by the climate sceptics who use populist rhetoric to fatten profits for corporations and ignore the needs of future generations.

Derek Wall is international co-ordinator of the Green Party of England and Wales

16 Sep 2013

Fracking Song by Emily Blyth Green Party of England and Wales Local Party Support Coordinator

Emergency Motion: Fracking

Over the summer months the oil and gas industry stepped up
their attempts to bringing hydraulic fracturing for shale gas (fracking) to the
UK.

In Balcombe, Sussex, Cuadrilla have begun testing on wells
that could eventually be ‘fracked.’ In other parts of the UK, such as the North
West and North East of England, South Wales and others fracking companies are
hoping to begun exploring for shale gas imminently.

Protesters, including Green Party MP Caroline Lucas, have
been arrested for demonstrating against Cuadrilla in recent weeks.

At the same time the UK government has been promoting
fracking as an environmentally friendly way to provide energy for the country.
Fracking companies will be given tax incentives and communities who accept
fracking will be given ‘financial compensation.’

Conference notes that experts from OfGem and Deutsche Bank
have said that shale gas exploitation in the UK will have negligible impact on
fuel bills.Furthermore leading economist Lord Stern has said that the
suggestion that shale gas will reduce the price of gas is “baseless economics.”

Conference notes that Water UK- the body that represents water
companies- has warned that fracking
could lead to contamination of the water supply.

Conference notes a study by Bloomberg which says that the
UK may need to drill 10,000 wells to stop our reliance on imported gas.

Conference sends solidarity to protesters who have been
fighting Cuadrilla in Sussex and those protesting against fracking elsewhere.

Conference re-affirms its opposition to fracking in the UK
and instructs elected Greens to fight against fracking at every level.

Conference instructs GPEX to publicise the potential harm
that fracking can cause to enable the Green Party at every level to take a firm
line to protect communities, drinking water and the environment.

Conference instructs GPEX to publicise the fact that a dash
for unconventional oil and gas in the UK is highly likely to mean we will fail
to comply with our legally binding climate change legislation.

Green Party conference opens today in Brighton. Brighton has been at the forefront of Green Party
electoral success, electing our first MP Caroline Lucas and first Green Party local authority.

However,
it provides serious challenges for the party.

Caroline Lucas has made a
significant impact on the political system in Britain. From her arrest for
opposing fracking to her passionate speech against war in Syria to her Private
Members Bill to renationalise the railways, she is often a lone voice against
austerity and neo-liberal economics. It is difficult for the Green Party
of England and Wales to win seats at Westminster, given the first past the
post system, so every Green Party member knows that the most significant task
they face is to ensure her re-election. At the same time, the
Conservatives, Lib Dems and Labour Party machines are desperate to remove her.

There are
few firm voices in Parliament advocating ecological sanity,
peace and opposition to the cuts agenda. All on the left, not just those
of us in the Green Party, need to support Caroline. Indeed, with Ed Miliband
still committed to Tory cuts, it is essential that an alternative to austerity
is present.

Opponents
of the Green Party find it difficult to challenge Caroline’s record, but
instead focus on the Green councillors' record in Brighton and Hove. While
some claim that trying to create socialism in one country is
impossible, none of us should dismiss the challenges involved in
bringing in
green policies in one city or town. It is of course the worst possible
time to be in local government, with life threatening cuts and
restrictions imposed by Eric Pickles. Also, the Greens run a minority administration and could be outvoted at any time. Criticism
of Green councillors in
Brighton and Hove can be seen as a way in which opponents may suffocate
the Green Party as a resurgent force on the left of British politics.

So how should Brighton and Hove Green Party
councillors proceed in this uniquely difficult climate? There are no easy answers, of course, but
there are indicators. One approach is to advocate careful
management even if this means cuts. This is logical, because
as one minority council administration, resistance strong enough to fight
the Tories and win looks unlikely. At least in the Green Party there is a contrast with
Labour, in that Labour councillors up and down Britain have been threatened
with expulsion and sometimes removed if they advocate no cuts budgets. In
the 1980s Liverpool and other left wing councils stoutly resisted Thatcher, but in
our decade left wing Labour councils who might provide solidarity with other no
cuts administrations are a historical memory, like King Arthur or Boddicea.

Yet there is a point where we Greens become caretakers
for catastrophe, managing as best we can, delivering cuts as compassionately as
possible, showing perhaps that we are just as efficient or even better managers
than councillors from other parties. Yet the shit is increasingly hitting
the proverbial and alternatives which are both radical and
practical are essential. Better delivery of policies that nevertheless bring misery is
ultimately unsustainable.

The situation in Brighton and Hove reminds one of the
travails of Labour governments in the 20th century. When they
tried to be good managers, to stop frightening the horses, to join perhaps the
establishment and show they were safe pairs of hands, they, to be blunt, fucked
up. When Labour thought outside the prevailing wisdom they made real and
effective changes. Many of us would argue that the Greens risk being
tamed, becoming another political animal too docile to challenge the power
hungry corporations and militarist political establishment. All Greens
should remember that in the 1930s the Labour government embraced the Gold
Standard, swallowed the conventional political medicine and embraced
austerity. Ramsay McDonald’s policies nearly destroyed the Labour
Party and his name spells the word ‘traitor’. In contrast, the
introduction of the NHS by Atlee’s 1945 Labour government provided something
we all love. Business as usual for the Brighton and Hove Greens may simply be a
recipe for defeat, if it appears to local Sussex voters that we are the same as the big
three pro-austerity political parties but merely more efficient at delivery.

There
are
no easy answers for anyone in local government, resistance has to be
built
however difficult this may seem. Imaginative responses to the cuts are
needed. This weekend I am supporting Green Party proposals at our
National Conference for a Progressive Council Tax. This can be
introduced
in Brighton and Hove - the principle is simple, and it is legal.
Council
Tax would nominally be raised to ensure the Council could protect its
services,
but but about 80% of payers would actually receive rebates that
amounted
to a cut in their payments. The minority at the top of the income scale
would pay more so that money can be found to preserve front line
services.

It is not
a panacea, it will require a referendum, and on its own it is no substitute for
Labour, the Greens and the trade unions up and down Britain taking on the
government in a unified fight. PCT requires detailed examination to iron
out problems like shared households, however it is essential that the party
does not close down this option and votes to further explore it, and any other
means to practically challenge cuts and austerity.

Under the pretext of a severe financial crisis Greece is reasserting its investor-friendly profile by opening up all goldmines across the country without regard to the threats that mining poses to the environment and to people’s livelihoods. Foreign investors are particularly welcome: fast track processes; tax relief; exception from damages; easy money; no royalties; no problems.

But the true picture is not so rosy! Sham public consultations, questionable deals designed to advance specific corporate interests and the slow but steady destruction of the environment have been met with resistance. The struggle to oppose Eldorado Gold’s plans to create an enormous open pit mine on Mount Kakavos and within the ancient forest of Skouries has succeeded in capturing people’s imagination and inspiring waves of solidarity across the country.

While organising their long campaign affected communities have learned a lot about Greek law; geology; environmental science; and the technologies of extraction. As they did so, they begun to ask questions about development, participation, human rights and the public interest. Their questions were answered by the riot police.

Now the people from Skouries are bringing this discussion to London.

Lazaros Toskas

member of the Struggle Coordinating Committee of Megali Panagia, will share stories of resistance and repression, of mining, rights and the politics of development.

Other speakers from Corporate Watch, Greece Solidarity Campaign and London Mining Network.